35,000 Walrus Come Ashore In Alaska 292
the eric conspiracy writes "Lack of sea ice in the Arctic has forced record numbers of walrus to come ashore in Alaska. The walrus, looking for a place to rest have come ashore in Point Lay Alaska. The walrus normally rest on floating ice. "We are witnessing a slow-motion catastrophe in the Arctic," Lou Leonard, vice president for climate change at the World Wildlife Fund, said in a statement that was reported by CNN. "As this ice dwindles, the Arctic will experience some of the most dramatic changes our generation has ever witnessed. This loss will impact the annual migration of wildlife through the region, threaten the long-term health of walrus and polar bear populations, and change the lives of those who rely on the Arctic ecosystem for their way of life."
Koo Koo Kachoo (Score:4, Funny)
This is definitely the disasterous dastardly doings of the Eggman!
Re: (Score:2)
Eggman seems like a nice fellow so far. I don't think we can take the walrus's word on this, even if he is part of the maker movement.
And what did he call himself? A "Freedom Fighter"? That's basically another word for terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
Eggman seems like a nice fellow so far. I don't think we can take the walrus's word on this, even if he is part of the maker movement.
And what did he call himself? A "Freedom Fighter"? That's basically another word for terrorist.
If fire fighters fight fires what do freedom fighters fight?
Shoryuken (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Nothing new here ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover
http://polarbearscience.com/20... [polarbearscience.com]
Large haulouts of walruses -- such as the one making news at Point Lay, Alaska on the Chukchi Sea (and which happened before back in 2009) -- are not a new phenomenon for this region over the last 45 years and thus cannot be due to low sea ice levels. Nor are deaths by stampede within these herds (composed primarily of females and their young) unusual, as a brief search of the literature reveals.
Includes references, links and copies of contemporary reports.
Re: (Score:3)
Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover http://polarbearscience.com/20... [polarbearscience.com]
Large haulouts of walruses -- such as the one making news at Point Lay, Alaska on the Chukchi Sea (and which happened before back in 2009) -- are not a new phenomenon for this region over the last 45 years and thus cannot be due to low sea ice levels. Nor are deaths by stampede within these herds (composed primarily of females and their young) unusual, as a brief search of the literature reveals.
Includes references, links and copies of contemporary reports.
Whoopsie, wwf made a poopsie.
The factual inaccuracy of the claim is insignificant in light of the millions in donations they'll likely garner as a result.
Re:Nothing new here ... (Score:5, Insightful)
So because it's happened for other reasons in the past, that conclusively rules out climate change as a cause in this case? Not seeing the logic there.
Let's not jump to any conclusions here, either pro or against climate change as a cause, until we get a peer-reviewed study concerning this event. TFA is insufficient evidence, as is your link.
Re:Nothing new here ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole article and WWF statements are jumping to conclusions.
The link IS sufficient evidence with citations from peer reviewed papers having observed similar events multiple times dating all the way back to the 1950's and anecdotal evidence from Inuits dating to before that.
I don't understand why every time an event or statement made to get bleeding heart environmentalists to cry is ALWAYS accepted (even with proof that its a bald faced lie) however anything that does not 100% support AGW, CC or any enviro propaganda is automatically ignored or branded as denier lies.
Seriously and skeptics are blamed as the ones with confirmation bias???? I mean REALLY??? Pseudo-Environmentalists need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How does the cause of past events have any bearing on the cause of this event? Is it unthinkable for there to be more than one possible cause?
GP's linked studies make a good case about past events. They say nothing about this event, which may have entirely different causes. It's pure speculation to assume either way, at this stage, and accusations of confirmation bias and "bald faced lies" only reflect on the accuser.
Re:Nothing new here ... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's called "warming" since originally that's what the models predicted. This is happening, but most of the excess heat is currently being "stored" in the oceans (which was unexpected and helps explain the "hiatus") yet eventually they will be unable to store more. The permafrost in Siberia is already melting (look up "dragon breath holes Siberia" for some horrifying pictures). It's really simple math overall. Take several million years of lifeforms, and then burn them all in 200-300 years. Were does all that extra CO2 go to? Off into space? Kinda, it sits up in the atmosphere making it more opaque to heat trying to escape.
Really, how hard can it be to understand? When you burn several millions of years of concentrated organic material quickly, this is what happens. You can even test this at home with a science-fair type experiment! If you took a fish tank, put a few inches of water in it, put black cloth all around it in a coldish room, seal up the tank (no fish!) but leave an air hose going in (seal that too), and have the correct light bulb going on and off every 12 hours...measure the temp in there with "normal air", then replace some of the air with CO2/methane...the air temperature above the water WILL rise. It's just physics...
Re: (Score:3)
You're quite correct that we shouldn't be quick to jump to conclusions, but the article he links does make the point that there doesn't seem to be a correlation between the recent years in which mortality events occurred (2009, 2011, and 2014) and the years in which lower ice levels were recorded (2007 and 2012). Moreover, we shouldn't need to wait for a peer reviewed study before we simply discuss the topic (I'm not saying you said we should, just pointing out that we should feel free to do so).
As you said
Re:Nothing new here ... (Score:5, Informative)
there doesn't seem to be a correlation between the recent years in which mortality events occurred (2009, 2011, and 2014) and the years in which lower ice levels were recorded (2007 and 2012)
Arctic ice has quite a bit of local variability from year to year, so you probably don't want to average ice area in the entire Arctic, but only look at the habitat area of the walrus.
Re: (Score:2)
An absence of correlation is a pretty strong hint for an absence of causation.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that itself is the premise of anthropogenic global warming.
Look at paleoclimatological records. ...and the last one was about 120k years ago, meaning it's time.
You will see a nearly-vertical (ie sudden, in climate terms) spike in temperature, like what has happened over the past century.
Moreover, this happens regularly, around every 120k years.
Now, I'm not saying human activity isn't making it worse, but (like the walrus case) doomsayers haven't explained how something can happen 10+ times sequentia
Re: (Score:2)
Moreover, this happens regularly, around every 120k years. ...and the last one was about 120k years ago, meaning it's time.
What is the mechanism behind these regular spikes ? Can we see that this mechanism is active right now ? Can this mechanism adequately explain the very sudden rise in temperature ?
Re:Nothing new here ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Fascinating website. Lots and lots ... and lots of articles bashing global warming. Googling them turns up lots of SEO, pointed almost entirely to anti-climate change sites using site to support their claims.
Truly fascinating.
I also like how Dr Crockford's writing contains such brilliant scientific conclusions as this one:
"I suggest this is what really happened: the polar bear biologists working in Svalbard earlier this year knew this bear was going to die back in April when they captured him – they simply waited, with a photographer on hand, until he died. It was an orchestrated photo-op."
Also amazing how her extensive papers are based entire on field work. Oh wait, I mean, according to her site she DOESN'T do field work. She's purely academic.
"I am a different kind of polar bear expert than those that study bears in the field but having a different background means I know things they do not and this makes my contribution valuable and valid."
She's the one shining light in entire scientific community standing up against the thousands of scientists spreading polar bear misiniformation.
I'm glad to see ultra conservative Heartland Institute paying for her diligent, important, unbiased work.
http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-payments-university-victoria-professor-susan-crockford-probed
Huzzah! Good for her!
We're all in good hands. Everything is OK.
Sleep, young man, sleep....
Re: (Score:2)
denialist website bought and paid for by Heartland.
why am i not surprised?
Re: (Score:2)
But WWF still advocates for huning polar bears. (Score:5, Informative)
The U.S. and Russia, with the support of groups such as Humane Society International, the Natural Resources Defence Council and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, had argued that allowing Canada to continue trading in the bears was contributing to more hunting at a time when their sea ice habitat is shrinking because of climate change. The Russians added that the Canadian trade makes it easier for poachers in Russia by allowing them to disguise their kills as legal bears from Canada.
But Canada — along with Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, influential scientific bodies and other NGOs — said the Canadian hunt is sustainable and that the real threat to the bears is from climate change, not trade.
Although the world sided with Canada this time, Derocher notes support is slipping.
From http://www.macleans.ca/news/inuit-scientists-say-defeat-on-polar-bear-trade-ban-not-final/ [macleans.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
The McMahon family are crazy and their employees are overdosed on steroids
Walruss (Score:2)
So wow are the Carpenters doing?
Is the joke here... (Score:2)
Microsoft account? (Score:2)
Is this a joke? I now need a Microsoft "Live" account to follow articles linked to by Slashdot?
I mean searching for 35000 walruses on google only provides about 2million hits the top one not being msn's sorry attempt at a failing portal.
Why not link to CNN [cnn.com] or any of the other sites running the article. I can't believe I'm going to say this but why not link to someone's blog covering it?
On the picture in the link... (Score:2)
On the picture in the link, it seems like there is a rubber like material holding them together ;-)
Zooming in, that picture doesn't seem to make sense. Photoshop? Please feel free to enlighten me.
No more clubbing baby seals (Score:2)
"change the lives of those who rely on the Arctic ecosystem for their way of life"? You mean guys who are clubbing baby seals to death with strange looking polearms?
Out of all the arguments which could move me, they have picked one which makes me cheer for global warming...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's not worry about if the walruses are coming to shore because of human-caused climate change. They're coming to shore because the ice has melted. It doesn't matter to them who melted the ice, or how, they just want the ice back. And that will be humans in another degree or two.
Re: (Score:2)
Reports of mass beachings of walrus go back a ways. It's not anything new.
Re:The problem with double standards. (Score:5, Informative)
Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford weighs in: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover [polarbearscience.com] - 'The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense that has nothing to do with science...this is blatant nonsense and those who support or encourage this interpretation are misinforming the public.'
Re:The problem with double standards. (Score:5, Informative)
Population sizes may fluctuate for a number of reasons that have little to do with the low ice levels: note these very recent incidents of large walrus herds and associated mortality events (2009, 2011 and 2014) have not coincided with the lowest levels of summer sea ice in the area, which occurred in 2007 and 2012.
Re:The problem with double standards. (Score:5, Informative)
The same Susan Crockford who gets paid by the Heartland institute every month, and who is:
Her opinion on climate science simply does not matter.
Re:The problem with double standards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Early arctic explorers reported walrus and seal colonies that stretched miles. Like the buffalo they where industrially hunted in the 19th and early 20th century. The Walrus population has rebounded since their low in the 1950s. Walrus colonies only form on islands, not ice. Now pray tell, how does ice cover in the arctic come into play? (That is a real question, after researching the subject, I can not find any clue how ice cover affects walrus populations.)
Re:The problem with double standards. (Score:5, Informative)
Then you didnt look very hard considering many of them live on floating ice in the ocean, far from land, where there are no islands. That's why they are dependent on the ice to rest, because they cannot swim constantly like other members of the seal family. When the ice disappears, their possible range shrinks as they are forced to come ashore to rest. Living on the ice is one of their evolutionary advantages, keeping them safe from predators, close to their food supply, and increasing the posible territory they can inhabit.
"The limited diving abilities of walruses brings them to depend on shallow waters (and the nearby ice floes) for reaching their food supply."
"The walrus relies on this ice while giving birth and aggregating in the reproductive period."
"Thinner pack ice over the Bering Sea has reduced the amount of resting habitat near optimal feeding grounds. This more widely separates lactating females from their calves, increasing nutritional stress for the young and lower reproductive rates."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford
Quite an unfortunate name - until you consider she's financed by the Heartland Institute. Quite fitting, actually.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The problem with double standards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you fucking kidding me?!?! The fucking story is about the behavior of walruses!!! The Zoooligist is the science expert you are looking for to put context to this story, not the climatologist!!!
Shit with these kind of stories, even the experts aren't allowed to be experts!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well done! You've read the subject of the thread you're commenting in. Now read the post I replied to, which offered this rebuttal from the good Doctor herself:
That's my point. She's voicing her opinion on fields outside of her speciality (which is paleozoology and dog e
Re: (Score:3)
Shit with these kind of stories, even the experts aren't allowed to be experts!
Well, it turns out that she isn't an expert in animal behaviour. Her specialty is zooarchaeology which is mostly concerned with how ancient people utilized animals in their cultural and dietary practices. (Disclosure: I'm an archaeologist who works on Vancouver Island where Dr. Crockford is located (University of Victoria). We hire people like Dr. Crockford to carry out studies like this for us.)
Meanwhile, she does appear to be connected to the Heartland Institute. There are lots of references to thi
Re:The problem with double standards. (Score:4, Insightful)
The attempts by WWF and others to link this event to global warming is self-serving nonsense
"this event" is the walrus beaching, which she had darn well better know about. If the WWF said your computer started overheating due to global warming, would you take their word for it because they know climate science better, or would you check your system fans and blow dust off your heat sinks, knowing what the real cause likely is since it happens regularly, albeit rarely?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt you'd ask a zoologist to explain climate change, so asking a climatologist about migration and social behavior of walruses seems equally bizarre. The WWF's voicing their opinion, not fact.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
so by this theory, the walruses should beach when the ice is at its lowest... that is when there is the least ice? Historically that hasn't happened. Scientists have been watching the walruses and we've had years of lower ice cover with less beachings and years with higher ice cover with more beachings. I can cite evidence to that effect if you like. So you don't even have correlation much less causation.
So no... you cannot simply infer A leads to B leads to C without actually doing science in between. You
Re:The problem with double standards. (Score:5, Insightful)
You, and all the other "skeptics", are pretending to be engaged in a rational approach.That's not credible.
There will never be enough evidence to convince you. It's obvious from your past behavior. Every time a new piece of real world evidence shows up you have the same knee jerk reaction: ti's not enough, there's some other reason, it happened before, what about (irrelevant information here), etc.
So there is an extraordinarily large walrus event: it doesn't count. There are new high temperature records being set every year: the numbers are skewed. Vermont maple farmers are loosing their livelihood because the winters are not cold or long enough: it's just a long term cycle. Dozens (or even hundreds) of species in North America and Europe are moving their range further north every year: a common pattern isn't happening, each case is unique and unrelated.
Stop wearing the fig-leaf of "rational skeptic". You have made up your mind. No additional information will sway you. Short of a "personal extinction event", you are not going to change you position or your behavior.
Re:The problem with double standards. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The problem with double standards. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing new does not mean not related.
Car crashes occured before drunk driving became an epidemic, yet that doesnt mean that the increase in car crashes was not affected by the increase in drunk driving.
Walrus are dependent on the ice.
When there's not enough ice, they beach.
Walrus landings have been increasing as ice decreases.
The ice is decreasing because of globl warning.
Keep trying chump.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok you want real science? Here is what the Zoologist Dr. Susan Crockford has to say on the subject: Mass haulouts of Pacific walrus and stampede deaths are not new, not due to low ice cover [polarbearscience.com] AGW may have severe effects on the environment (18 year pause anyone?), but THIS is not one of them.
This is the usual "Banks have been robbed even before I was born, so I couldn't have possibly robbed this one" tactic the deniers love so much.
Re: (Score:3)
Flamebait for pointing out a massive conflict of interest in a person stepping outside their area of expertise?
You mean like the WWF being used for the quote in the summary?
OK, so you attacked the source, but I looked at the article [polarbearscience.com] and it points to scientific literature and shows highlighted quotes that put the current news in perspective. The OH NOES, GLOBAL WARMING knee-jerk reflex is getting old when it doesn't hold up under scrutiny, especially when temperatures have plateaued far long than any model predicted.
Try coming up with a rational counter-argument that addressed the points made instead of relying on ad
Re:The problem with double standards. (Score:5, Insightful)
Global Warming isn't a rational/scientific debate. If it was, the idea wouldn't have taken off as a result of Al Gore's film. That's not science, it's a popularity contest.
I'm not debating whether the science is there or not. I'm simply pointing out that the idea of Global Warming didn't take off because of the science. And Karmashock is right in saying that when in doubt (there is contradicting evidence for or against some event being caused by Global Warming) the Global Warming crowd goes nuts when people dare to question it. You need to be able to admit that not everything is caused by Global Warming.
Science is not well served by shouting down people who disagree with you. It's served by providing evidence to back up your claims and explaining why your opponent's claims are factually incorrect. Labeling people skeptics without actually proving them wrong is counterproductive.
Re: (Score:3)
It's served by providing evidence to back up your claims and explaining why your opponent's claims are factually incorrect
Evidence is only a few mouse clicks away, readily accessible for anybody with a decent understanding of science.
Re: (Score:2)
Like this: HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series [scirp.org]
Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 - 26 years in the lower troposphere. Use of a simple AR1 trend model suggests a shorter hiatus of 14 - 20 years but is likely unreliable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I did not claim it was, now did I?
But two things are certain, we can assume that the climate models from the late 90s can be rejected with a high certainty (99.9% for a 18 year span*) and that currently there is no climate scientist that can reliably predict when the earth will go out of the pause. The problem is that during the AGW debate too much science and policy was dedicated to the A part of the AGW. I personally think that indiscriminately changing the composition of the atmosphere (anything about th
Re: (Score:2)
I did not claim it was, now did I?
I said evidence was only a few mouse clicks away, and you responded "like this". So, yes, you were implying that your link points to some evidence. So, okay, let's assume the models from the '90s aren't accurate. That doesn't necessarily mean that AGW is wrong, just that the models are incomplete. Now, if you could come up with a more accurate model that doesn't depend on AGW, *that* would be interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is impossible to come up with a more accurate model that does not take into account AGW. Because changing the atmosphere and composition of the land masses (e.g. deforestation/urbanization) does have an effect on climate; anybody claiming the opposite is daft. The problem is/was that the fixation on CO2 lead to the neglect of other external factors, such as the sun, cosmic radiation, deforestation... If prediction did incorporate the pause (to a certain extent), the apocalyptic 4C would seem more
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is/was that the fixation on CO2 lead to the neglect of other external factors
What do you base this on ? Variation in the output of the sun is certainly part of any decent climate model, as well as concentration of aerosols and volcanic activity, and anything else that has a known effect. Cosmic radiation has not been shown to influence temperatures, as far as I know.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm simply pointing out that the idea of Global Warming didn't take off because of the science.
What, Svante Arrhenius wasn't a scientist?
Re:The problem with double standards. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are absolutely right - it's not a scientific debate. The science is settled. We're beyond that now. The debate amongst climatologists is for accuracy, not whether AGW exists or not. We're many decades past that point. The fact that there is such an overwhelming body of evidence showing AGW exists, and yet organisations and governments deny it exists shows that there are people willing to ignore science for other reasons. As long as that happens, science can't be used to convince them otherwise, as they have already deemed it ignorable if it proves antagonistic to their desired position.
So yes, science is not well served by shouting down, but it's even less well-served by people simply ignoring it because it's telling them things they don't want to hear. Once that starts to happen, what should people do? Accept the purposeful ignoring of science as a valid position, and applause people for ignoring evidence?
The sceptics have been proven wrong time and time again - they trot out the same weak arguments which have already been debunked, and get all indignant when that's pointed out. They pretend to play the "science game" - by using the correct language and going through the motions - but they don't listen to the answers when science provides them. They're the Glenn Becks of this discussion - they're asking questions but not bothering to hear, or even interested in, the answers, and definitely not bothering to change their position when it is demonstrated to be fundamentally at odds with every shred of evidence gathered.
Of course not everything is caused by global warming, but conversely when the science shows that something is definitely affected by it, we can't point at alarmist media and claim that reflects the quality or content of the science. That is incredibly disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
apparently you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he's referring to the fact that plants take CO2 out of our atmosphere and return oxygen to it. Of course, the problem with this is that plants are a temporary CO2 sink. When the plant dies, it decomposes and releases CO2 back into the atmosphere. If you're talking about the normal levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, this helps regulate CO2 levels (some plants are absorbing CO2 while others are decomposing and releasing it). The problem is that we've dug deep into the Earth, pulled out coal and oil, b
Re: (Score:2)
Also, plants do not live on CO2 alone. They're not simply going to grow bigger because there's more CO2 in the air anymore than you would grow taller in the presence of more oxygen. Plant growth is not limited by available CO2. They also need water and most importantly nitrogenated soil. That soil is likely to be washed away by storms fueled by global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Plants love CO2.
Most of them also hate increased heat and reduced moisture. And they dont really "love CO2". That's a misunderstand of plant respiration.
The Sun and it's Cycles really do have the most extreme effect on our climate.
No, they don't. This has been proven decisively. In fact, if they were having an effect, the Earth should be cooling right now, as the sun is actually going through a period of lower solar output for some time now.
Further: "The claim that solar cycle length proves the sun is driving global warming is based on a single study published in 1991. Subsequent research, including
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The problem with double standards. (Score:2)
Bullshit. Saying green tech will help in any of the catastrophic models is like saying pissing on a house fire will put it out. Now, in the non-catastrophic models, green tech can help, but then it also won't be too hard for humanity to adapt to any changes. As such you would never gain the political will needed to implement said tech in India or China thus making the point moot.
Re: (Score:3)
If someone says, "oh look, it's cold out, that disproves global warming," they are a denialist.
Neither side is scientific.
Re: (Score:3)
This is true for both sides of the "Obama is a foreigner" or "Bush did 9/11" debates, too. But that doesn't change the fact that one side is consistent with reality, while the other is absurd agenda-driven fantasy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I say look at giant holes of methane out-gassing in Siberia. Or the giant areas of highly acidic oceans that lack enough oxygen for fish to survive. Both of these are from us burning fossil fuels.
Really? Nothing to do with the fact we're coming out of an ice age, and that we're still lower than the interglacial temperatures prior to the last ice age? We're seeing these things because of fossil fuels, not for any other reason?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to do with the fact we're coming out of an ice age
No, temperatures from the last glaciation stopped rising about 8000 years ago. And it certainly doesn't explain the sudden sharp rise we've seen this century.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Warming or not, things are happening and everyone can see them.
What does that even mean?
Re:The problem with double standards. (Score:4, Interesting)
They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.
It's probably completely bogus. [postimg.org] The sea ice isn't far from normal for this time of year, and higher than in other recent years. It's higher than in 2005, not quite as high as 2006.
Let's not forget that parts of the Pacific coast were a little warmer than normal, too. But that doesn't imply "warming", because the majority of the U.S. was way colder than normal.
So we have: sea ice that might be just a little lower than normal in certain parts of Alaska, but pretty normal overall.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.
It's probably completely bogus. [postimg.org] The sea ice isn't far from normal for this time of year, and higher than in other recent years. It's higher than in 2005, not quite as high as 2006.
Why do you bring up all of the Arctic to tell us there must be sea ice around Alaska - there fucking isn't: http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.p... [noaa.gov]
Or, to quote TFA: "In recent years, sea ice has receded north beyond shallow continental shelf waters and into Arctic Ocean water, where depths exceed 2 miles and walrus cannot dive to the bottom."
But nooo, the walrus are just taking a hiatus on the beach because they are imagining things. When they should be swimming north a couple hundred miles.
Re:The problem with double standards. (Score:4, Informative)
So we have: sea ice that might be just a little lower than normal in certain parts of Alaska, but pretty normal overall.
I suppose that depends on your definition of normal, for example it's about 2 million square kilometers [google.com] below the average for 1980-2010, which hardly seems to qualify as normal. I can a reason see why you would choose an average of the lowest years on record for comparison, but it's not a very flattering reason.
Re: (Score:2)
"It seems like too many things get labeled "this is because of global warming" but if the opposite thing happened the same people don't say "this shows global warming isn't happening". Its only in one direction. So every blizzard is global warming. Every heat wave is global warming. Every hurricane is global warming. Every shift in migration patterns is global warming."
To me, it seems it never happens that way but it does happen for every blizzard people say that refutes global warming, etc.
However,
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to be confusing what you hear on the news with what the actual scientists are saying. Pointing out you confusing the media with the science isn't "questioning the orthodoxy", just pointing out you are getting your scientific information from the mass media, which is never a good idea.
Stick to the peer-reviewed papers, or to credible sources which perform actual analysis.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory.
This talk of double standards has another point. Talk of AGW and if it is or isn't man made, if it is or isn't happening centers around a key distraction because it is the main externality of modern man. Cast doubt on carbon as an externality then you cast doubt on every other of the plethora of externalities that we just expect nature to deal with.
So put aside AGW for a while and ponder if all the industrial products and processes we have actually produce pollution as an externality and, for how long has
Re: (Score:2)
You wrote a lot to disguise an inversion of my point. That is not acceptable, valid, logical, or indeed honorable.
My point was not that AGW does not exist or is not happening.
My point was that you cannot just say walrus are here, ice isn't here, so global warming caused walruses to be here.
That was pretty clear. You've largely backed up my point about the political elements in these topics. You are not a positive influence on rational discussions. You promote factionalism, tribalism, political gainsaying, a
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You first chump.
You have never done anything but poopoo the science and push long debunked denier BS.
You act as if there is some magic science to be done in between. It's real simple.I'll break it down for you:
-Walrus are weak swimmers compared to the rest of seal-dom. They cannot swim indefinitely, and have to rest.
-They typically rest on sea ice. It's nearer their food, convenient, and extremely safe for them.
-They now are having to come ashore because there's not enough ice.
-Why is there is not enough ic
Re: (Score:2)
Even the content of IPCC documents differ from the policymakers' summaries.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Things are only evidence of a given theory or they are only valid if they confirm current theory. It seems like too many things get labeled "this is because of global warming" but if the opposite thing happened the same people don't say "this shows global warming isn't happening". Its only in one direction. So every blizzard is global warming. Every heat wave is global warming. Every hurricane is global warming. Every shift in migration patterns is global warming.
Here someone is going to attack me for pushing the denialist/skeptic position... because god forbid anyone question the orthodoxy. But that isn't my point. I am not saying AGW isn't happening. I just think we are too quick to conclude every little thing is AGW related. If you can show it to be related... scientifically... that is with evidence... sorting for cause and not correlation... then fine. But did that happen here? They noted less sea ice, they noted the walruses, they noted AGW, and just linked A to B to C without bothering to any science in between. That is my problem.
Either do the science or disclaim your position with a statement that this is just your assumption/guess. I'm fine with people guessing. Guess all day. Don't tell me your guesses are science though.
It is scientific fact that walruses cannot swim endlessly like seals, and therefore need a place to rest when moving distances.
Human observation over the last 100+ years or so, have noticed walruses taking a break from swimming by clinging or climbing onto the floating ice which is no longer there.
Other than observing this particular behavior pattern (beaching) and historical evidence (which exists), this does appear to be putting A to B with some logic and science behind it. Now we must determine why this
Re: (Score:3)
I just think we are too quick to conclude every little thing is AGW related.
I think the blame for this lies with those who have an interest in stirring up controversy and sensationalism. I can't imagine any scientist ever saying that "this is because of global warming"; what they would way is "this supports/doesn't support global warming" - or perhaps more likely, they will ask how these observations might fit into current theories.
The general public mostly get it completely wrong, expecting that scientists want to defend their theories against anything that might go against them;
Re: (Score:2)
Let us not pretend that all scientists are professional and that some of them are not political activists that use their role to promote political causes... or even personally enrich themselves. They're still people and not immune from bias.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking along similar lines.
Did anyone think to actually ask a walrus?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trying desperately to make a point without getting buried in trolls, bigots, and fucktards.
Any issue that touches on something the politicals cares about always turns into a shit throwing contest. I could just stay out of it but things need to be said. Moderation. Patience. Due process.
And it is very hard to make that argument when the trolls, bigots, and fucktards are all primed like greased mouse traps to snap at just about anything. So I am trying to be sensitive to that while at the same time making my
Re:2013 Antarctic sea ice hit 35-year record high (Score:5, Informative)
Usual selective reporting from the Daily Mail - claiming a 29% rebound from an all-time record low is somehow "proof" that global warming is overblown. The link is a year old too - this year is actually the sixth lowest [colorado.edu] in the satellite record.
Worth looking at an actual trend [nsidc.org], rather than Daily Mail headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
But... but.. but the Daily Mail website told me that looking at actual trends would give me cancer [herokuapp.com]!
Re:useful for fuel source (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)